What this is
What is a safety program review?
What is a safety program review?
It is a yearly, per-programme check on whether a named safety programme — PPE, working at height, energy isolation, and so on — is actually doing what it was set up to do. It sits under ISO 45001 cl.9.1 monitoring and measurement, and it is deliberately narrower than a full management review: one programme, one owner, one verdict.
What does 'programme health' mean here?
Programme health is the review's overall verdict, scored Strong, Adequate, Weak or Failing. It is meant to combine whether the programme ran (activity completion), whether findings closed, and whether behaviour or incident trends actually moved — not any single one of those on its own.
How is this different from a management review record?
A management review record (CMP-014) looks across the whole safety management system at a fixed interval. A safety program review looks at one programme at a time, run by the person who owns it, and asks a narrower and more concrete question: did this specific programme change anything?
Scope
When is a safety program review required?
This review is one step in a larger programme. Using it for work that belongs to a neighbouring template produces records that are hard to report on later.
Use this template when
- A named programme (PPE, working at height, energy isolation, and so on) is due its yearly check, or a trigger event has brought the review forward
- You need a dated verdict on one specific programme, not the whole safety management system
- A new record is needed; each one gets its own ID in the form SPR-2026-000
- You are running the Safety Programme Management programme and this is one of its steps
- A linked record needs this one to exist: it feeds CAPA
Do not use it for
- Safety Management Plan, which sets out how safety is managed across the whole site, covering roles, processes, resources and how performance is measured.
- Annual Safety Objectives, which sets the safety goals for the year with measures, owners and target dates — the target, not the check on whether a programme met it.
- Site Safety Rules, which is the short list of rules everyone on site must follow, not a review of how a programme is performing.
- Management Review Record, which looks across the whole management system at a fixed interval rather than one named programme.
- Anything outside KnowSafe, which belongs in the workspace that owns that process
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.9.1 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 45001 cl.9.1 asks organisations to monitor, measure, analyse and evaluate performance against planned criteria — this review is where that requirement gets applied to one programme at a time.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Determine what needs to be monitored and measured, and over what period, before evaluating performance | Header |
| ISO 45001 cl.5.3 | Roles and responsibilities for programme ownership must be assigned and demonstrably active, not just named on paper | Is it running |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Evaluate whether planned activities were carried out as scheduled, as a distinct step from evaluating whether they worked | Is it running |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Analyse performance data, including incident trends, to judge effectiveness rather than mere activity | Is it working |
| ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Consultation and participation of workers extends to checking whether they understand the programmes meant to protect them | Is it working |
| ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Findings and nonconformities identified during monitoring must be tracked through to closure | Is it working |
| ISO 45001 cl.10.3 | Continual improvement decisions — continue, modify or stop a programme — follow directly from the evaluation just completed | Result |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Results of monitoring and measurement are retained as documented information and actioned where gaps are found | Result |
What it does not cover
- A programme review that reports only Completion Percent, which measures whether tasks ran, not whether the programme changed anything.
- Observed Behaviour Changed marked 'Yes, clearly' with Evidence Of Change left blank, which leaves the highest behaviour score in the form resting on nothing a later reader can check.
- Workers Can Explain The Programme scored from a Sample Size Asked of one or two people, which reports a workforce-wide claim off a conversation with almost nobody.
- A Continue As Is decision recorded against a Trend Direction of Worsening, which contradicts the trend the same review just entered a field above.
- Action Required set to No while an open CAPA ID from the prior review is still unresolved, which closes this review without checking whether last year's gap was ever fixed.
Global
Safety Program Review requirements by country
ISO 45001 is voluntary everywhere, but how much weight a completed programme review carries depends heavily on what else is riding on the certificate or the enforcement relationship in that jurisdiction.
OSHA VPP / ANSI–ASSP Z10
OSHA doesn't require ISO 45001, but VPP renewal and Z10-aligned audits expect dated proof a named programme was checked against real outcomes, not just described in a policy binder.
A site without a completed review has nothing to show a VPP assessor when they ask whether the PPE or working-at-height programme was actually evaluated this year.
HSE Plan-Do-Check-Act model (HSG65)
UK enforcement expects the 'Check' stage of HSG65 to be evidenced, and ISO 45001 cl.9.1 is the recognised route; insurers increasingly ask for the review record itself after a near-miss, not the programme it reviews.
A site producing only the programme document, with no dated review or owner's signature, is treated as stuck at 'Plan' regardless of how the programme reads on paper.
ISO 45001 surveillance audit
Certification bodies sample programme reviews during surveillance visits and treat a missing or superficial one as a nonconformity against cl.9.1, independent of the programme's own quality.
Certification survives on the review trail as much as the programme — an auditor finding 100% completion but no Evidence Of Change entry will write it up as evaluation done in name only.
How to complete it
How to complete a safety program review, step by step
Filling in every field is the easy part. The judgement calls below are what decide whether the finished review would survive someone else reading it critically.
Evidence Of Change is free text with no required format, so the reviewer sets the bar themselves. An anecdote and a genuine before/after observation get typed into the same box, and only judgement about what's defensible keeps the first kind out.
A programme can hit 100% on Scheduled Activities Completed while Findings Closed sits far behind Findings Raised. How much that gap should drag down Programme Health, rather than being buried under a good activity number, is a call the form doesn't make for you.
Related Incidents This Period versus Last Period is often a comparison of very small numbers, where 'Improving' or 'Worsening' can hinge on one event. The reviewer decides whether the sample actually supports a trend claim or whether 'Stable' is the honest answer.
The gap between 'Modify' and 'Stop and rethink' is a matter of degree the form doesn't define. That call rests on how much of the programme's underlying design, not just its execution, the findings actually implicate.
What auditors find
Most common safety program review findings
These are the specific ways a completed review passes its own checklist while still failing to do the job the review exists for.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Completion Percent recorded at 100% while Findings Closed lags far behind Findings Raised | ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Treat activity completion and finding closure as two separate health signals in the write-up; don't let a strong one mask a weak one. |
| Observed Behaviour Changed marked 'Yes, clearly' with Evidence Of Change left blank | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Require a one-line evidence entry before the behaviour-change score can be set above 'No evidence'. |
| Trend Direction marked Improving while Related Incidents This Period is higher than Last Period | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Cross-check the two incident fields before accepting the trend score; if they disagree, the review isn't ready to close. |
| Workers Can Explain The Programme scored from a Sample Size Asked of one or two people | ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Set a minimum sample size before this score counts, and log the number so a later audit can judge how representative it was. |
| Continue As Is selected while Programme Health is recorded as Weak or Failing | ISO 45001 cl.10.3 | Block 'Continue As Is' whenever health is below Adequate; force a Modify or Stop and rethink decision instead. |
| Action Required set to No while an open CAPA ID from a prior review is still unresolved | ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Pull the previous review's CAPA reference automatically and require it be marked closed before this one can record no action. |
Case in point
Case in point: a working-at-height programme that passed every audit and still put someone in hospital
A working-at-height programme ran its full schedule of inspections and toolbox talks for three straight years, and every prior review recorded Completion Percent near 100% with Programme Health rated Strong. The reviews were accurate on the one thing they measured — the activities happened — and silent on the one thing that mattered, because Observed Behaviour Changed had been marked 'Some evidence' every year without a single entry in Evidence Of Change.
A worker fell from a mobile platform after unclipping early to reach a tool, a habit supervisors later admitted they'd seen before. The investigation found what the reviews never asked: nobody had checked whether workers could explain why the rule existed, only whether inspections had been logged. The programme was rebuilt around a genuine worker sample and a hard requirement that Evidence Of Change carry a real observation — and the first honest review came back Weak, which is what should have happened three years earlier.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
5 sections
- Reference
- SAF-123
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- SPR-2026-000
- Scoring
- Programme health percent
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.9.1
- Links
- Feeds CAPA
- Tags
- Programme, Governance
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 40
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 3
Header
11 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format SPR-2026-0000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Programme Reviewed*
Review Date*
Reviewed By*
Site 2*
Site ID 2*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Period Covered From*
Period Covered To*
Is it running
6 fieldsDocumented Programme Exists*
- Pass2 pts
- Partial1 pt
- Fail0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Owner Named And Active*
- Pass2 pts
- Partial1 pt
- Fail0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Resourced Adequately*
- Pass2 pts
- Partial1 pt
- Fail0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Scheduled Activities Completed*
Scheduled Activities Due*
Completion Percent*
Is it working
11 fieldsActivity Is Not Outcome
A programme can run every scheduled activity and change nothing. Look for evidence that behaviour or conditions are different.
Findings Raised*
Findings Closed*
Closure Percent*
Related Incidents This Period*
Related Incidents Last Period
Trend Direction*
- Improving3 pts
- Stable2 pts
- Worsening0 pts
Observed Behaviour Changed*
- Yes, clearly3 pts
- Some evidence2 pts
- No evidence0 pts
Evidence Of Change
Workers Can Explain The Programme*
- Most can3 pts
- Some can1 pt
- Few can0 pts
Sample Size Asked
Related records
1 fieldClimate Survey ID
Survey results used in this review.
Links to SAF-168 Survey ID
Result
11 fieldsProgramme Health*
- Strong4 pts
- Adequate3 pts
- Weak1 pt
- Failing0 pts
Continue As Is*
- Yes3 pts
- Modify2 pts
- Stop and rethink0 pts
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Next Review Due*
Reviewed By*
Signature*
Site Manager*
Second Signature*
SAF-123 · record IDs look like SPR-2026-000 · Feeds CAPA
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The form is the easy part. Keeping it current, routing it to the right owner and holding the evidence together is the work that actually slips.
Holds the Safety Program Review library against your registers, routes each record to its programme owner, and flags when Programme Health drops without a matching CAPA.
Feeds the induction and toolbox-talk history that a reviewer needs to honestly answer Workers Can Explain The Programme, instead of guessing from a hallway conversation.
Tracks the certification and audit calendar around ISO 45001, so a Programme Health score of Weak or Failing surfaces before the next surveillance visit finds it first.
Coordinates the crew, rolls completion and exceptions into one view, and holds every write for your approval before it touches a record.
This template lives in KnowSafe — safety and compliance. Incidents, hazards, permits, inspections and the critical controls behind them.
Meet KnowSafe→Glossary
Safety Program Review definitions and key terms
- Programme health
- The review's overall verdict on a named safety programme — Strong, Adequate, Weak or Failing — meant to weigh activity completion, finding closure and behaviour change together rather than any one of them alone.
- Trigger event
- An incident, near-miss, audit finding or regulatory change that brings a programme review forward from its normal yearly slot.
- CAPA
- Corrective and preventive action — the tracked record raised when a review finds something that needs fixing, referenced back into this form by its own ID.
- Behaviour change evidence
- A concrete, checkable observation — not an impression — that shows a programme has altered how people actually work, as distinct from proof that its scheduled activities took place.
- Programme owner
- The named individual accountable for a specific safety programme's performance, who carries out its yearly review under this template.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about safety program review
What is the Safety Program Review template based on?+
It is built against ISO 45001 cl.9.1, monitoring, measurement, analysis and performance evaluation. ISO 45001 is the international standard for occupational health and safety management systems, certifiable and the backbone of most of this library.
What sections does the template contain?+
Five sections: Header, Is it running, Is it working, Related records and Result. Together they hold 40 fields, 32 of which are required, moving from whether the programme executed through to whether it actually changed anything.
How often is a review raised, and how is it scored?+
A new record is raised at the yearly review interval, or after any trigger event, and given an ID in the form SPR-2026-000. Scoring rolls up to Programme Health as a percentage, where high is good — but the score only means something if the underlying behaviour and incident fields were answered honestly.
Which programme does this template belong to, and what does it feed?+
It sits inside Safety Programme Management, and its output feeds CAPA — any Action Required marked Yes should produce a corrective action record referenced back into this form.
Why does the form separate 'is it running' from 'is it working'?+
Because a programme can run every scheduled activity and still change nothing. The 'Is it running' section checks execution; 'Is it working' checks outcome — incident trend, behaviour change and whether workers can explain the programme in their own words.
Can the template be changed?+
Yes. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it. Most teams install it as it is, run it for a full cycle, then adjust the questions once they've seen how a real review plays out.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Safety Programme Management
Regulatory Inspection Record
Records a visit by a regulator, including what was inspected, what was said and any orders issued
Management Review Record
Records the periodic review of the management system by senior leadership, covering performance, risks, resources and improvement
Interested Party Register
Holds the parties whose needs shape the management system, from regulators and customers to neighbours and the workforce
Safety Management Plan
Sets out how safety is managed across the site, covering roles, processes, resources and how performance is measured
Annual Safety Objectives
Sets the safety goals for the year with measures, owners and target dates
Site Safety Rules
The short list of rules everyone on site must follow, including visitors and contractors
More in Programs
Safety Management Plan
Sets out how safety is managed across the site, covering roles, processes, resources and how performance is measured
Annual Safety Objectives
Sets the safety goals for the year with measures, owners and target dates
Site Safety Rules
The short list of rules everyone on site must follow, including visitors and contractors
PPE Program Plan
Sets out what protective equipment is required for which task, how it is selected, issued, maintained and replaced
Hearing Protection Program Plan
Sets out how noise exposure is controlled, including monitoring, protection, training and hearing tests
Contractor Safety Plan
Sets out the safety requirements contractors must meet on your site, and how they are checked
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 45001:2018 cl.9.1 — Monitoring, measurement, analysis and performance evaluation
- ISO 45001:2018 cl.9.1.1 — General
- ISO 45001:2018 cl.10.2 — Incident, nonconformity and corrective action
- ISO 45001:2018 cl.10.3 — Continual improvement
- ISO 45001:2018 cl.5.4 — Consultation and participation of workers
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.